I hope that Danny will forgive me if I go all Scouse for a moment and shout "calm down, calm down" (Danny: I'm not doing the curly wig and 'tache bit as well, honest).
I agree that the claimants should have chosen to live elsewhere, and at first blush the decision appears offensive to common sense.
My point is that the decision may not have anything like the adverse effect which posters above and newspaper coverage might suggest.
Some lawyer stuff: first, as mentioned above, this has nothing to do with the EU. Second, the decision is at
htt p://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=1003100548&Notice=0&Notice mode=&RelatedMode=1
Scroll to para 95 and read to para 107 for the nitty gritty.
Basically, the UK was found to have failed to strike a sufficient balance between the privacy right on one side and the common good promoted by airport activity on the other (Art 8, like other bits of the ECHR, is all about balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of society), as it had not done the economic analysis needed to show that the inteference with Mrs Miggins' sleepy-bye byes is necessary in the interests of the economic well being of the UK.
A detailed study making the powerful economic case for night ops ought to be enough to resist any long term changes in the operating scheme or the general law about aircraft noise.
EDIT: the link above seems dodgy, so if it doesn't work, go to
http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm click on recent judgments, then on Hatton v UK
[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]